This and That
Michael said:
This is just like the anti-Merry Christmas people trying to ram their PC jollies down everybody's throat and ruining Xmas.
Just like all them uppity Negroes ramming their PC "civil rights" jollies down everybody's throat after World War II.
Look, we get it. When people are conditioned to accept and enforce bigotry, the one thing that won't work is pointing out injustice, double standards, or the bigotry itself.
Second, I don't mind having a conversation about "Don't Ask Don't Tell", that's fine. I do have a problem with hijacking PC and slamming into the side of what would otherwise be a nondescript perfectly harmless marriage proposal a few innocent young and in love Americans were enjoying before being broadsided with a Bowing 7/57 splattering hate and spite desolate all over the place.
Oh, my. So ... applying the rhetoric equally is offensive? Doesn't that suggest there's a problem with the rhetoric?
The point isn't to screw with these people's marriage. Indeed, I think most would wish them well, even the cynics whose only purpose is to not waste tax money in the courts if that marriage fails.
But it's time to bury this rhetoric about gays flaunting their sexuality. Quite clearly, you demonstrate just how offensive such rhetoric is.
• • •
The Esotericist said:
OR, it could be that the observer has placed themselves, as a social scientist, in the place of the average person at large, to answer the question posed. I believe you have perhaps mistaken said analysis, however astute, with the character of the analyzer. If you don't care for the character of society, please, do not get this confused with the character of the person making the analysis. If my analysis has struck a nerve, perhaps it is because of its incisiveness and clarity of vision, not due to some perceived "bigotry."
Two interesting stereotypes are in play here; one is, obviously, the stereotype of the homosexual. The other, though, is the stereotype of the average person. In truth, I never know quite what to think of that one. Sure, as the saying goes, "people are stupid", but just
how stupid?
If I myself hadn't went to university, and lived in a co-op with gay/lesbian friends, worked with them, and had many friends, seen them in real relationships, and only had scenes from Hollywood, San Francisco and scenes like this ... I wouldn't know jack.
This is why things like National Coming Out Day are important. Most Americans actually know homosexuals who don't fit the flamboyant stereotype. And maybe twewnty years ago, one could reasonably assert that most Americans weren't aware that they actually knew homosexuals who don't fit the stereotype.
If my only knowledge of this culture was from T.V., movies, and the massive amounts of notorious porn that is flooded into the cyber world. . . what do you think the average American is going to think of these communities?
And yet the same standard doesn't apply to heterosexuals? I mean, sure, there are social conservatives out there who despise the amount of sex and glamour in popular arts, but do they ever apply the same logical argument?
Well, sort of. But they don't apply it against heterosexuality.
We don't even have to reach into the world of
Desperate Housewives. Take a science fiction show like
Stargate Universe. In that one, the colonel has a beef with an associate in his organization because the guy banged his wife. Yet the colonel knocks up one of his officers, and is still emotionally distraught when his wife files for divorce. Tell me that doesn't sound like a soap opera.
Perhaps my favorite movie, a little-known Canadian film called
The Lotus Eaters, involves a family in western British Columbia. The father, a school principal, has an affair with the hot, young, new teacher. The eldest daughter gets knocked up by her boyfriend in the back seat of a car. The mother (also the best-known talent in the film, Sheila McCarthy) eventually commits arson as an act of revenge against her husband. On Christmas. It's no wonder the question isn't turned on heterosexuals.
Also, the culture tends to fixate on gay men. Why? Because heterosexual men
like the idea of lesbians. Really. I used to hang out on a strip club scene, occasionally working for a friend who ran a bar. And even in Oregon, in the 1990s, as there was an anti-gay push going on at the ballot box, plenty of the guys who disdained homosexuality also very much enjoyed, and looked forward to, seeing two women together.
But, you know, in that heterosexual way—
as long as they're hot.
I'm trying to think of the number of films I've suffered through over the years that other people still talk about because some hot starlet got on with another hot starlet. Some of them I can't even remember the titles. Although one I
do recall was a miserable flick called
Embrace of the Vampire. Awful film, but, you know, I know a lot of people who opposed gay rights at the time because of the stereotypes about homosexual men who said, "You gotta see this film. Alyssa Milano gets naked while doing this hot chick!"
I think it would be enlightening to hook up some homophobes, especially of my generation, to various equipment and then interview them. Did they see
Gia? I mean, it's a terrible movie, but
literally everyone I know who remembers it recalls the scene with Angelina Jolie getting heavy with another girl. (And, of course,
The Family Guy cemented that image in "Blue Harvest", but that's beside the point.) What you'll find is that a lot of homophobia, especially among men, is specifically sexist.
But the stupid parades? If anyone ever bothered to look closely, they would find that much of that flamboyance actually imitates
heterosexual culture. And, yes—
A good example of this would be the movie, The Birdcage, an updated remake of La Cage aux Folles, which stars Robin Williams and Nathan Lane. This movie has strong gender roles and could be said to have some very strong romantic elements in it. It proved to be very popular in America, even though it dealt with a gay relationship, it was very romantic.
—
The Birdcage is an excellent example. Those cabaret shows imitate traditional heterosexual burlesque and glamour.
(One irony worth noting is that I actually abandoned an earlier direct response to your fairy tale/romance post in large part because I was being too critical of the analyst; furthermore, I did consider
The Birdcage in that one.)
But here's the thing about
The Birdcage:
• The primary "romance" occurred between a young, attractive, heterosexual couple.
• Robin Williams and Nathan Lane both played stereotypes.
• Gene Hackman played a politician.
The film didn't do much to advance people's idea of homosexuals. After all, everyone roots for the young, attractive heterosexual couple in love. Especially when they want to do the traditional thing and get married.
And everyone loves to hate a politician, especially an overtly hypocritical moron like Hackman's character.
And everyone loves to laugh at a prissy queen, like Nathan Lane's character. They also like to laugh at self-imposed problems, such as resulted from the cowardice of Robin Williams' character.
Some might suggest star power lent to
The Birdcage's success, and while this is undoubtedly true to
some degree, star power isn't the whole of the story.
Try a cast that includes Steven Weber (at the time a star of the popular NBC series
Wings), Patrick Stewart, Sigourney Weaver, Kathy Najimy, Debra Monk, Nathan Lane, and Olympia Dukakis, among others.
Jeffrey was a flop.
I mean, sure, it has a prissy queen (Patrick Stewart), but not enough. It has a shady televangelist (Sigourney Weaver), but not enough. In the long run, though, it was bound to be a box office failure. A film of that quality with that kind of pedigree isn't going to sell because it doesn't play to the stereotypes; in fact, it turns a couple of them on their heads—Debra Monk and Peter Maloney are hilarious as Steven Weber's parents, but their roles are clearly farcical. Its comedy is too subtle, and its romance is, well,
gay.
Or
The Incredibly True Adventures of Two Girls In Love. It's nearly a perfect film; indeed, a study in how to do one-camera, low-budged drama. But its a drama about
lesbians, which kills its commercial success.
This is, ultimately, the marketplace. Big deal. But it does lead us back to a question you asked earlier:
Would it inspire the next generation and teach the boys and girls in their heart about romance?
Once we turn our eyes from the stereotypes,
yes, such films teach about love and romance, and also about courage and fear. For the young homosexual, it is accessible because the thematic context is familiar; for young heterosexuals, it presents gays as
humans. I've actually seen these processes taking place as a result of people seeing these movies.
When we rely on stereotypes—which are generally found objectionable because they are
designed to be offensive—then the argument seems easy and clear.
Would
The Birdcage have been so popular without Williams and Lane? And without the flaming stereotypes? Would it have been so popular if it was an ugly heterosexual couple that wanted to get married? What if the bride's father wasn't a politician, but, instead, a hard-working, blue-collar, midwestern union man?
Personally? I have no beef with it, I think they are a gas. . . like Marti Gras, but with a political and solidarity message. But they certainly aren't going to help change any stereo types any time soon. . .
You're not telling me anything new, but the problem with that consideration is that it essentially equals:
Because bigotry (or hypocrisy) exists, it is offensive, and therefore unproductive, to point out the bigotry (or hypocrisy).
Because, after all, it sends people into rages, and makes them rant about "
whinny bitches", as we have seen. I mean, think about it: Our neighbor has no problem with the DADT question; gays should serve in the military if they're so inclined. But by no means should the bigots and hypocrites ever stop being bigots and hypocrites, with the result that by no means should gays ever be treated decently, respectfully, and equally.
If the parades are really so problematic, what the hell am I supposed to think of Pioneer Square, Seattle, on Fat Tuesday? Or the French Quarter, New Orleans, just about anytime? Or the flesh-fests at Lake Havasu?
I went to a Jesuit high school, where plenty of the girls knelt on Friday morning (school mass) for forgiveness, and again on Friday night to blow their boyfriends.
What confounds me is that consistent application of the argument is offensive to those who invented the argument. Sure, it's fine to talk about how scary gays are, but to point to the same sort of behavior in heterosexuals? Well, as we see in this thread, that's just unacceptable.
It exposes the fundamental hatred underlying the bigotry. It is willful cruelty, and the heterosupremacists seem to feel entitled to it.